Division Line ...

[SNIPERBBB]

No because BC violation depends only on ball location status and who touched it last.

It would be a very good and extremely random tr8ck for a player to step on or over the division line and get back off it being the space if a normal dribble.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by SNIPERBBB

It would be a very good and extremely random trick for a player to step on or over the division line and get back off it being the space if a normal dribble.

I seriously doubt that such a player would be able to intentionally "walk the tightrope" to purposely avoid a backcourt violation, but possibly could do it unintentionally, with a nearby official watching.

Of course, the supposedly offended coach will be yelling "backcourt!".

I wasn't officiating when the NFHS first added the 9-3-1-Note to the rulebook (it was already there when I started), so I am not aware of the purpose and intent of the note, but I would guess that it was added so that officials wouldn't have to keep track of rapid split second miniscule movements of both feet and hands in such situations where a dribbler is dribbling very close to a boundary.

Should that same purpose and intent apply to the division line for a backcourt violation?

If so, why didn't the NFHS include a similar note in the interpretation of a backcourt violation in regard to touching the division line with a foot while at the same time not touching the ball?

[SNIPERBBB]

I would imagine it would of been added to avoid the scenario i mentioned with the division. its hard to watch 2 things at the same time that are 2-5 feet a part from 20-40 feet away. Is the dribbler touching the ball at the same time as they're standing on the line? The NOTE removes that judgement issue.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by SNIPERBBB

... it's hard to watch two things at the same time ... Is the dribbler touching the ball at the same time as they're standing on the line? The NOTE removes that judgement issue.

But the note only applies to boundary lines, not to the division line (which, by definition, is not a boundary line).

We need a casebook play, or at least an annual interpretation, to clarify.

If we call this a backcourt violation, the only support we have is purpose and intent.

On the other hand, we may not actually need any support because coaches are most likely ignorant regarding the definition of a boundary and/or the actual rule language of the note.

Only way this rare and possibly incorrect backcourt call attracts any attention is if it's the last call in a one point state championship game.

Would probably attract more attention if we don't call it, but we would have the support of the actual rule language and would not have to rely on purpose and intent.

[SNIPERBBB]

I want talking about division line in the past you quoted

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

NFHS, NCAA Men's/Women's, NBA/WNBA, and FIBA Rules:

1) The Division Line is in the Backcourt of the Team in Control of the Ball.

2) A Player who is Dribbling the Ball is in Control of the Ball. Therefore A1 has Player Control of Ball and Team A has Team Control of the Ball.

3) The moment that A1's foot touched the Division Line A1 committed a Backcourt Violation.

4) Items (1) and (2) are Basketball Rules Fundamentals.

MTD, Sr.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

3) The moment that A1's foot touched the Division Line A1 committed a Backcourt Violation.

What part of the "word salad" backcourt rule had been violated?

NFHS Backcourt 9-9-1: A player shall not be the first to touch the ball after it has been in team control in the frontcourt, if he or a teammate last touched or was touched by the ball in the frontcourt before it went to the backcourt.

Ball was never in the backcourt.